‘Unfunded liability’
Dear Editor:
RE: Fanning the flames, April 9.
The response to my letter (Fiscal fire, April 2) relies on noble narratives while ignoring the mathematical reality facing all of Ontario.
First, the “319 acres a day” statistic is a gross simplification used to mislead the public. It fails to distinguish between “total farm area” and “workable land.”
By counting woodlots, wetlands and fallow ground as “lost farmland,” supporters use headline-grabbing numbers that don’t reflect actual productive reality. We cannot base 30-year provincial land-use policies on flawed data.
Second, the author highlights Ontario’s agri-food industry as a $51-billion powerhouse. If that is true, we must address the powerhouse paradox: why are one in four people in this province currently food insecure? A multi-billion-dollar GDP is a hollow victory if the citizens living in the heart of that industry cannot afford to eat. Food security is an affordability crisis, not a land-shortage crisis.
Third, an endorsement is not an economic model. The fact that various groups support Bill 21 does not exempt it from fiscal scrutiny. None of these groups have modeled the multi-million-dollar infrastructure deficit created by restricting local aggregate or the long-term tax burden of the “agricultural impact assessment” mandates. To paraphrase a common truth: just because millions of people eat at McDonald’s doesn’t mean the food is good for you.
Bill 21 is a “noble cause” that hasn’t been audited. Until we see a 30-year fiscal impact model that accounts for rising infrastructure costs and local food prices, this isn’t a “Protection Act” – it is a massive unfunded liability for every taxpayer in Ontario.
Gary De Bock,
Delhi